Application of the WFD cost proportionality principle to diffuse pollution mitigation: A case study for Scottish Lochs

Vinten, Andy; Martín-Ortega, Julia; Glenk, Klaus; Booth, Pamela; Balana, Bedru; MacLeod, Michael; Lago, Manuel Jesús Dolz; Moran, Dominic; Jones, Matthew James Malham

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.015

Cited by 34 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Extending on the surprisingly few investigations on the use of CBA for disproportionate cost assessment available in the literature (e.g. Bateman et al 2006;De Nocker et al 2007;Environment Agency 2009;Lago et al 2010;Molinos-Senante et al 2011;Kinnel et al 2012;Vinten et al 2012), in this paper we propose a novel CBA-based, riverbasin-level screening procedure as a first step towards identifying and narrowing down the number of river basins in a country where disproportionate costs are likely to occur -areas where more comprehensive and costly CBAs would seem worthwhile undertaking in order to properly assess whether costs can be considered disproportionate. The aim of the paper is also to exemplify the suggested approach on a relevant case, by providing an initial screening in order to identify river basins in Denmark, where the disproportionate cost clause of the WFD could potentially be invoked -if further detailed and more targeted analysis in the identified basins confirm that costs are substantially higher than benefits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A practical CBA-based screening procedure for identification of river basins where the costs of fulfilling the WFD requirements may be disproportionate – applied to the case of Denmark

Jensen

Jacobsen

Olsen

et al. 2013

Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Union's (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) is implemented as an instrument to obtain good ecological status in waterbodies of Europe. The directive recognises the need to accommodate social and economic considerations to obtain cost-effective implementation of the directive. In particular, EU member states can apply for various exemptions from the objectives if costs are considered disproportionate, e.g. compared to potential benefits. This paper addresses the costs and benefits of achieving good ecological status and demonstrates a methodology designed to investigate disproportionate costs at the national level. Specifically, we propose to use a screening procedure based on a relatively conservative cost-benefit analysis (CBA) as a first step towards identifying areas where costs could be disproportionate. We provide an empirical example by applying the proposed screening procedure to a total of 23 river basin areas in Denmark where costs and benefits are estimated for each of the areas. The results suggest that costs could be disproportionate in several Danish river basins. The sensitivity analysis further helps to pinpoint two or three basins where we suggest that much more detailed and elaborate CBAs should be targeted in order to properly ascertain whether costs are indeed disproportionate.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A practical CBA-based screening procedure for identification of river basins where the costs of fulfilling the WFD requirements may be disproportionate – applied to the case of Denmark

Jensen

Jacobsen

Olsen

et al. 2013

Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interpretation of "disproportionality" in terms of a cost-benefit calculation may seem most obvious at first sight [6]; accordingly, several attempts for an operationalisation have been made along this line [7][8][9][10][11]. However, direct and indirect methods for evaluating the benefits (i.e., ecosystem services) have been found to be very laborious [11] and to face methodological shortcomings [12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Interpretation Of Disproportionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Achievement of “Good Status” for German Surface Waters Disproportionately Expensive?—Comparing Two Approaches to Assess Disproportionately High Costs in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive

Klauer

Schiller

Sigel

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently only 8.2% of German surface water bodies have reached the goal of the European Water Framework Directive to bring all water into a "good status". For all water bodies that presumably will not achieve the objective by 2027, the member states have to justify an exemption by 2021, for example, by arguing that the costs of achieving "good status" would be "disproportionately high". In this paper, two approaches for assessing cost-disproportionality of surface water bodies are empirically tested and compared on a set of real-world data from a German federal state. In the first approach, called average cost approach, costs are considered as being disproportionately high if they are significantly higher than what would be a "relatively normal effort". The core idea of the second, the benchmark approach, is to take the past public expenditures on water management as a basis for comparison. Both approaches include generated utility for determination of a water-body-specific disproportionality threshold. While the benchmarking approach needs less data, the empirical tests indicate that both approaches yield comparable results and are suitable to support authorities in the decision as to which water bodies are to be considered disproportionately expensive such that exemptions are justified.

show abstract

“…In order to include cost benefit assessment more thoroughly within the disproportionate cost assessment in Scotland, Vinten et al (2012) proposed a framework for proportionality assessment of phosphorus (P) pollution mitigation in 544 Scottish lochs at national and local water body scales. For 293 (31%) of the lochs GES already occurred.…”

Section: Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have investigated how welfare economic cost-benefit analysis can be used for the assessment of disproportionate cost (e.g. Bateman et al 2006;Hanley and Black 2006;De Nocker et al 2007;Lago et al 2010;Molinos-Senante et al 2011;Kinnel et al 2012;Vinten et al 2012). Examples in a Nordic context are Jensen et al 2013;Holen and Magnussen 2011;Magnussen and Holen 2011 Barton et al 2005;Barton et al 2008;Brady 2003;Jacobsen 2007;Hasler 1998;Elofsson 2012;Iho 2005. In the next section we present and discuss how the ecosystem services framework can be used for these tasks in the WFD, and vice versa -how the WFD implementation activities can be used for the assessment of ecosystem services.…”

Section: Introduction To Wfd and The Ecosystem Services Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Services

Magnussen¹,

Hasler²,

Zandersen³

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Application of the WFD cost proportionality principle to diffuse pollution mitigation: A case study for Scottish Lochs

Cited by 34 publications

References 30 publications

A practical CBA-based screening procedure for identification of river basins where the costs of fulfilling the WFD requirements may be disproportionate – applied to the case of Denmark

A practical CBA-based screening procedure for identification of river basins where the costs of fulfilling the WFD requirements may be disproportionate – applied to the case of Denmark

Is the Achievement of “Good Status” for German Surface Waters Disproportionately Expensive?—Comparing Two Approaches to Assess Disproportionately High Costs in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive

Ecosystem Services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About